alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 This schedule contains summary financial
                         information extracted from Form 10-K for the period
                         ended December 31,1997 and is qualified in its
                         entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000

<S>                      <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<CASH>                              9,023
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     111,954
<ALLOWANCES>                        5,535
<INVENTORY>                        37,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  166,178
<PP&E>                            460,474
<DEPRECIATION>                    183,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    487,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             130,212
<BONDS>                           240,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                       (110,314)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      487,800
<SALES>                           519,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  519,104
<CGS>                             363,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     363,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      886
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 21,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    65,573
<INCOME-TAX>                       25,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                39,990
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       39,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
Set Aside and Remand and Opinion Filed August 24, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00363-CV

DFW A-1 PALLET, INC., Appellant

V.

GWG WOOD GROUP INC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-14018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel

Stating the parties have settled this case, appellant has filed an unopposed 

motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment, remand the case to the trial court for 

rendition of judgment, and dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion to the extent that 

we set aside, without regard to the merits, the trial court’s February 21, 2023 default 

judgment and April 12, 2023 order and remand the case to the trial court for rendition 

of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). 

230363f.p05 /Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DFW A-1 PALLET, INC., Appellant

No. 05-23-00363-CV V.

GWG WOOD GROUP INC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-14018.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel, 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE, without 

regard to the merits, the trial court’s February 21, 2023 default judgment and April 

12, 2023 order and REMAND the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment 

in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

As agreed by the parties, we ORDER each party bear its own costs of the 

appeal.

Judgment entered this 24th day of August, 2023.
#### Leon TAYLOR, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-13046.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 8, 1961.

Hicks & Fancher, Hollis, Valdhe Pitman, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Hendrix Wolf, County Atty., Harmon County, Hollis, for defendant in error.

NIX, Presiding Judge.

The defendant Leon Taylor, was charged by information filed in the District Court of Harmon County, along with James McDonald and S. D. Lennox (A-13,047) with the crime of grand larceny. The jury found the defendant guilty of the crime charged and assessed his punishment at one year in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The case was appealed to this Court on April 26, 1961. On June 2, counsel for defendant filed an extension of time in which to brief. Under the rules of this Court, a brief should have been served on the attorney general and filed in this court within 30 days. Therefore, the request was out of time.

It is also a rule of this court that where an appeal is taken from a judgment of conviction, and no brief is filed and no appearance for oral argument made, the Court of Criminal Appeals will examine the record for fundamental error and if none appears, the judgment will be affirmed. Scott v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 380, 236 P.2d 517.

Title 21 O.S.A. § 1704 states:

> “Grand larceny is larceny committed in either of the following eases:

> “1. When the property taken' is of value exceeding twenty dollars.

> *“2.*When such property, although not of value exceeding twenty dollars in value, is taken from the person of another. * * * ”

> *111Title 21 O.S.A. § 1705 states:

> “Grand larceny is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years.”

The evidence supports the verdict of grand larceny and the punishment is not extreme.

For all the above and foregoing reasons, and the rules of this court, the judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
#### Luz Montes et al., Respondents, v Long Island College Hospital, Respondent, and Armor Elevator Co., Inc., Appellant.

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and application denied, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by ordering defendant Armor Elevator Co. to disclose records of repairs it made to an elevator six months after plaintiff’s accident *(see, Klatz v Armor Elevator Co.,*93 AD2d 633). Contrary to the argument of defendant Long Island College Hospital, the complaint does not allege defective manufacture, to which evidence of subsequent repairs would be relevant *(cf, Gavigan v Otis Elevator Co.,*117 AD2d 941, 942). Nor is the evidence discoverable, under an exception to the general rule, on the issue of control and maintenance because here, as in *Klatz (supra,*at 637), the responsibilities of the parties are governed by a service contract. Finally, evidence of *682subsequent repairs is not discoverable on the issue of prior notice of defective condition. Here, Armor’s second cross claim against the Hospital is based upon a contractual requirement that the Hospital give Armor notice of any accident within 24 hours of its occurrence. The Hospital does not need Armor’s records of subsequent repairs to determine whether it gave Armor the required notice *(cf, Shvets v Landau,*121 Mise 2d 34). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Spodek, J. — Discovery.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4294 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4294

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to provide a criminal 
  penalty for unauthorized disclosures by officers or employees of a 
 Federal agency of certain living will and stress test determinations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prevention of Private Information 
Dissemination Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.

    Section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5365) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Criminal Penalty for Unauthorized Disclosures.--Section 
552a(i)(1) of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to a 
determination made under subsection (d) or (i) based on individually 
identifiable information submitted pursuant to the requirements of this 
section to the same extent as such section 552a(i)(1) applies to agency 
records which contain individually identifiable information the 
disclosure of which is prohibited by such section 552a or by rules or 
regulations established thereunder.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order entered October 7, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00588-CR

TRENT LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-45216-M

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

On August 11, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On October 3, 2016, we received the reporter’s record. 

Because findings are no longer necessary, we VACATE the August 11, 2016 order.

We ORDER the reporter’s record filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10305

Summary Calendar

RANDY CHILDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ARLINGTON TEXAS;

NATHANIEL G. HARDER;

RUBEN A. PUENTE,

Defendants-Appellees.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-135-Y

--------------------------------------------------------------

December 13, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Randy Childers appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the

defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. On appeal, Childers argues that his

complaint was no t barred by limitations because duress imposed by the City of Arlington, Texas,

(“City”), and its officials precluded him from timely filing his complaint.-2-

The standard of review following the district court’s order granting summary judgment is de

novo

. M elton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America

, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Ci r. 1997).

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c).

In determining the limitations period for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the applicable period is

governed by state law, which in this case, is the two-year Texas personal injury limitations period.

See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 16.003(a) (Vernon 1986 & Supp. 2002); Pete v. Metcalfe

,

8 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, state law governs the applicability of any tolling

provisio ns. Pete , 8 F.3d at 217. In P ierce v. Estate of Harry Haverlah

, 428 S.W.2d 422, 427-28

(Tex. App. 1968), the court established that to prevail on the defense of duress, the burden rests with

the movant to show that the alleged duress would have prevented “an ordinarily prudent person” from

exercising his free will to file suit prior to the expiration of limitations.

Childers fails t o carry his burden of proof. He argues that defendant Puente and other

members of the City po lice department threatened to reopen a former criminal arrest charge if he

pursued his civil rights complaint. Childers does not identify which officers o t her than defendant

Puente threatened him. With respect to the alleged threat from Puente, Childers describes only one

encounter insufficient to sustain his contention that the threat was continuous in nature. S ee Pierce

,

428 S.W.2d at 427. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the

defendants.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.01

Subsidiaries

Williams Controls Industries, Inc., a
Delaware CorporationAptek Williams, Inc., a Delaware CorporationPremier
Plastic Technologies, Inc., a Delaware CorporationProActive Acquisition
Corporation, a Michigan CorporationWMCO-Geo, Inc., a Florida
CorporationNESC Williams, Inc., a Delaware CorporationWilliams
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware CorporationWilliams World Trade, Inc., a
Delaware CorporationTechwood Williams, Inc., a Delaware
CorporationAgrotec Williams, Inc. (Agrotec), a Delaware
CorporationWilliams (Suzhou) Controls Co. Ltd.Williams Controls Europe GmbHWilliams Controls India Private
LimitedHardee Williams, Inc. (80% Owned), a
Delaware CorporationWaccamaw Wheel Williams, Inc. (80% Owned), a Delaware
Corporation

58

---
# C_2009297EN.01001101.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-255/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Determination of thresholds - Size of the project - Incomplete transposition)

2009/C 297/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-17-00445-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-006011-1

Before Pittman, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Birdwell, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

RALANDA WANDA KAY RICHARD, Appellant

V.

FW HUNTER PLAZA, L.P., Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Ralanda Wanda Kay Richard’s brief was originally due on June 13, 

2018. On June 14, 2018, we granted her first requested extension of time in part and 

ordered the brief due no later than July 13, 2018. On July 26, we granted her second 

requested extension of her briefing deadline and ordered her brief due on August 20, 

2018. On August 21, 2018, we granted Appellant’s third requested extension of her 

briefing deadline and ordered her to file the brief no later than September 24, 2018. 

We stated, “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.” 

Nevertheless, on September 27, 2018, we granted Appellant’s request for leave to file 

her brief late, and ordered her tendered brief filed that date.

Also on that date, however, we notified Appellant that her brief is deficient, 

specifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of 

appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1, 9.4(i), 38.1(a)–(d), (f)–(k), 2nd Tex. App. 

(Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A. We directed Appellant to file an amended brief which 

complies with the appellate rules by October 8, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 38, and 

2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. We stated that her failure to do so could result 

in our striking the noncompliant brief and dismissing the appeal or a waiver of 

noncompliant points. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.

On October 8, 2018, Appellant did not file an amended brief. She instead filed 

a “motion requesting extension of time to mail the documents into the courts and ask 
3

permission to send evidence of recordings onto a thumb drive by October 31, 2018.” 

The motion is DENIED, as are all other pending motions.

Because Appellant has failed to file a compliant, amended brief even after we 

afforded her an opportunity to correct her brief, we strike Appellant’s brief and

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 18, 2018
# C_2021431EN.01002301.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Vodafone GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

(Case C-854/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - ‘Zero tariff’ excluded in the case of roaming)

(2021/C 431/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on use when roaming, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: March 8, 2011
/s/ STEVEN D. BONHAMSteven D. BonhamChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
ReelSkies	Maintenance	Log DJI	Inspire	1	Model	T600 SN:00000000 Discrepancy__________________________________________________________________________________ Corrective	Action_____________________________________________________________________________ Found	By__________________________________	Date______________________________________________ Corrected	By______________________________	Date______________________________________________ Discrepancy____________________________________________________

______________________________ Corrective	Action_____________________________________________________________________________ Found	By__________________________________	Date______________________________________________ Corrected	By___________________ ___________	Date______________________________________________ Discrepancy__________________________________________________________________________________ Corrective	Action_____________________________________________________________________________ Found	By__________________________________	Date______________________________________________ Corrected	By______________________________	Date______________________________________________ Discrepancy______________________________________________________

____________________________ Corrective	Action_____________________________________________________________________________ Found	By__________________________________	Date______________________________________________ Corrected	By_____________________ _________	Date______________________________________________
# C_2023045EN.01003503.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/35

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — Deichmann-Shoes UK v Commission

(Case T-141/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/54)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---